EU resurrects banking practice that caused the 2008 financial crisis – POLITICO
www.politico.eu
  • geissi@feddit.orgEnglish
    6·
    4 hours ago

    While I understand being skeptical, this article is terrible and provides next to no information about the issue.

    So the EU wants to “resurrect”, “breathe new life into”, “revive” securitization? How? What changes are proposed? Which regulations are supposed to be dropped?

    And while the practice may have aggravated the 2008 financial crisis, it was caused by the US subprime market, as the article itself mentions.

    Brussels now wants to loosen the rules governing the practice, meaning banks would need to put aside less capital against the loans they trade, as well as easing due diligence and reporting rules around the practice. But the Commission insists enough safeguards will remain to protect against a repeat of 2008.

    Again, what rules are supposed to be eased, what safeguard would remain?

    There is no information here for us to judge how risky this actually is. We just have to trust Politico’s word.
    And quite frankly, I do not find Politico - part of the Axes Springer group - trustworthy enough.

  • HubertManne@piefed.socialEnglish
    11·
    15 hours ago

    No worries. The us is like a rock. so stable and sensible it will help in any future fincancial crises im sure. /s

  • Miles O'Brien@startrek.websiteEnglish
    4·
    13 hours ago

    I have a permanent solution to banking crises:

    Ban capitalism globally.

    It’s foolproof. It will stop any more banks from having any sort of crisis.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.caEnglish
      06·
      12 hours ago

      Well yeah, we’ll all suffer under communism where you’ll get shot for disagreeing, but who cares about those details, right?

      At least we can say that we checkmated capitalism

      • luciferofastora@feddit.orgEnglish
        3·
        5 hours ago

        The other comment is definitely far too simplicistic in its proposition, but I’ll point out that Communism doesn’t have to be authoritarian. That’s just the result of violent revolution, necessarily carried out by people so convinced that their ideology is right that they’ll use violence to assert it. Revolution requires unity, so dissidents present a real risk to a nascent movement.

        Combine those two and you have a recipe for authoritarian suppression of all who disagree with the dominant ideology, or the dominant leader figure supposedly best representing it. What they might initially see as a necessary step to a better world then becomes a feedback loop: Anyone who argues that they’re past the point where this policy is still necessary and justified is a dissident by definition.

        Conversely, authoritarian policy also doesn’t require communism. It’s perfectly possible to have a non-communist ideology in power that suppresses all opposition. The problem isn’t communism, it’s violence: once started, it’s hard to reign in again and keep on the right track.

        • Parodper@foros.fediverso.galEnglish
          1·
          4 hours ago

          That’s just the result of violent revolution, necessarily carried out by people so convinced that their ideology is right that they’ll use violence to assert it. Revolution requires unity, so dissidents present a real risk to a nascent movement.

          I’ve heard it phrased as the Bolsheviks never really leaving behind their «underground party» phase.